Ram Autar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ram Autar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus should be issued commanding the respondents to remove the alleged illegal encroachment from the chakmarg in Gata Nos. 282 and 193 of Village Bakiyapur, Pargana Dixir, Tehsil-Tarabganj, District Gonda.

Court's answer

In view of the State's assertion that there is no encroachment on the chakmarg and that proceedings concerning the encroached plot are pending before the appellate authority, the Court held that at this stage it does not deem it appropriate to entertain the petition or pass any further orders.

Key takeaways

Observing that it is the bounded duty of the State to ensure that its properties are free from encroachment, and since the matter is already engaging the attention of the appellate authority, the Court stated that it will be the obligation of the State to ensure that the pending proceedings are taken to their logical conclusion and the orders passed therein are faithfully implemented as expeditiously as possible.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Writ-C No. 4161 of 2026 (Jaspreet Singh, J.), decided April 30, 2026: Ram Autar v. State of U.P. and others. Petition seeking a writ of mandamus for removal of alleged encroachment from the chakmarg in Gata Nos. 282 and 193, Village Bakiyapur, Pargana Dixir, Tehsil-Tarabganj, District Gonda, disposed of without entertainment. Following a Coordinate Bench direction dated 22.04.2026, written instructions of the Tehsildar Tarabganj dated 21.04.2026 stated that Plots 193 and 282 are recorded as chakmarg and inspection revealed no encroachment; encroachment on Plot No.282 by Phool Chand son of Durga Prasad was already the subject of proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in which a final order imposing penalty and eviction was passed on 17.09.2025, and the encroachee's appeal under Section 67(5) of the Code, 2006 is pending before the appellate authority. The Court held it inappropriate to entertain the petition at this stage, observing the State's bounded duty to keep its properties free from encroachment and its obligation to take the pending proceedings to their logical conclusion and faithfully implement the orders as expeditiously as possible. No mandamus issued; no costs or quantum awarded.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - C No. - 4161 of 2026

Ram Autar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others

Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sunil Kumar Maurya, Ashutosh Shukla, Vivek Kumar Maurya Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta

Court No. - 8

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to remove the illegal encroachment from the chakmarg in Gata No.282 and 193 of Village Bakiyapur, Pargana Dixir, Tehsil-Tarabganj, District Gonda.

A Coordinate Bench of this Court, by means of the order dated 22.04.2026, had directed to the learned standing counsel to seek instructions in the matter.

In pursuance thereof, the learned standing counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions dated 21.04.2026, under the signatures of Tehsildar Tarabganj, District Gonda. In the said written instructions, it has been indicated that as far as the Plot No.193 and 282 are concerned, the same are recorded as chakmarg and upon inspection by the State Authorities, it was found that there was no encroachment. It has further been indicated that as far as the Plot No.282 is concerned, the encroachments were made by one Phool Chand son of Durga Prasad against whom proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, 'the Code, 2006') were initiated, wherein the final order

WRIC No. 4161 of 2026

2

imposing penalty and eviction was passed against the said encroachee on 17.09.2025.

It has also been indicated in the said written instructions that the encroachee has preferred an appeal under Section 67(5) of the Code, 2006, which is pending before the appellate authority.

In view of the aforesaid, once there is clear assertion that there is no encroachment on the chakmarg and as far as the other plots are concerned, proceedings have been initiated which are engaging the attention of the appellate authority, this Court, at this stage, does not deem it appropriate to entertain the petition or pass any further orders, however, it is also observed that since it is bounded duty of the State to ensure that its properties are free from encroachment and the matter is already engaging the attention of the appellate authority, it will be obligation of the State to ensure that the proceedings are taken to its logical conclusion and the orders passed therein are faithfully implemented as expeditiously as possible.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of .

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

April 30, 2026

Rakesh/-

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench